People generally don’t like language being changed and attempts to do so are always likely to be met with disdain or ridicule as a knee-jerk reaction. This happens even when the proposed changes are clearly progressive is in the case of replacing Miss/Mrs with Ms or Chairman with Chair.
Disdain and ridicule are even more likely responses when proposed changes are patently disdainful and ridiculous as is the case with much of what is called “trans inclusive” language, most of which might also reasonably called “woman erasing” language. I originally intended to have just one page with a few examples but it got a bit crowded so I’ve divided the material up into categories and given them a page each.
Here are links to external articles:
“It is understood the 1,350-pupil school has no plans to drop the term ‘girls’ from its name. The principal’s letter read: “We have moved to using gender neutral language in all our communications with students and parents. We know that for many transgender students being misgendered can be very hurtful.”
Yet the move has been met with some hostility from parents of youngsters at the school. The change was branded ‘potty’ by one parent who said they thought the letter was a ‘joke’ when it arrived. One parent, who asked not to be named, said they were left stunned by the policy change. “When I opened the letter I wasn’t sure if it was a joke or not”, they said.”
Breastfeeding is not a neutral act Full cream web blog
“I have become increasingly disturbed to watch the language of birth and breastfeeding support become a battleground in the name of inclusivity – specifically, the inclusion of individuals and families who identify as transgender or non-binary. More and more frequently, breastfeeding supporters and activists who use the term ‘mother’ are slapped on the wrist for doing so, on the basis that it is a gendered term which excludes those who do not identify as mothers. Similarly, ‘breastfeeding’ excludes people who don’t think of their milky bits as female or breasts. Instead, we should be using the ‘preferred terms’ of lactating parent. Human milk. Chestfeeding (or even just ‘feeding’).”
“The headmistress of one of the country’s most prestigious girls’ schools says she has stopped calling her pupils ‘girls’ in a bid not to alienate transgender pupils. James Allen’s Girls’ School’s head teacher Sally-Anne Huang says she now refers only to ‘pupils’ and not ‘girls’, as well as replacing the pronoun ‘she’ to ‘they’.”
“WHEN a person’s waters break and that “person” goes into labour, we’ve gone too far.
That sums up the position of Australia’s midwives, who have had to fight to get “woman”, rather than “person”, into their new code of conduct. The Nursing and Midwifery Board took the nation’s 30,000 midwives by surprise when it drafted the new code and replaced references to “woman-centred care” with “person-centred care”. The Board invited submissions on the draft code and they flooded in, from the profession, academics and individuals.”
“We believe that it is a mistake to define the experiences of pregnancy and childbirth though the lens of gender identity. The very few gender-identified males that have given birth or accessed an abortion have only done so because they are female-bodied people, and that scientific fact cannot be erased. We are allowing gender identity to be the primary way that we refer to one another, even for a biological process like birth. Pregnancy and birth are distinctly female biological acts; only women and female-bodied people can give birth.”
Once upon a time, complaining that feminism focused on women would have seemed as odd as complaining that a baker’s shop sold bread. But what’s behind it is the belief that the old feminist goal–liberating women from the oppressive structures of patriarchy–has become outdated and politically reactionary. What feminism should be about in the 21st century is freeing individuals from the oppressive constraints of binary gender.
“Without proud and open use of word woman, feminist politics lack the scope to mount anyradfem-symbol real resistance to women’s subordination. You cannot liberate a class of people that may not even be named. Womanhood is devalued by these insidious attempts to render it invisible. If women do not consider ourselves worth the inconvenience caused by naming us directly, specifically, we can hardly argue that we are worth the difficulties that liberation must bring.”
The word ‘woman’ is being erased from public life Brendan O’Neill
“So feverish is the obsession with avoiding giving offence to trans people that society is now happy to lie to itself. Frontpage headlines declare, ‘MAN HAS BABY’ and ‘Baby joy of first British man to give birth’. Media outlets inform us that ‘Statistics reveal men have given birth to 54 babies in Australia’ and ‘Pregnant British man gives birth to daughter’. We know all of this is untrue. Don’t we? We know that no man, anywhere, has ever given birth. We know that’s impossible. What they really mean is that women who identify as men gave birth. But if you say that — if you say, ‘They must be women, because they gave birth’ — you will be branded transphobic. It is a hate crime to say men cannot get pregnant.”
“The pregnant body is not an isolated, solipsistically self-defining object. It exists in time, within a specific social, historical and political context. One can argue over whether or not gender exists as an apolitical entity; whether to be a woman is to identify or be identified as one. Our most immediate challenge, however, concerns whether all pregnant individuals are seen as people, not whether all pregnant people are seen as women. In order to address this we need to talk about women as a class. Gender-neutral terms limit our ability to do this. Whatever our intentions, neutralising language is not a neutral act.”